NAGINA HAKIMUDDIN AKOLAWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.A. Naik, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri A. Chutke, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Mrs. S.S. Jachak, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. By their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.

(2.) Expiry of period of 10 years; absence of any acquisition proceedings during said period; service of valid notice under Sec. 127[1] of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and expiry of period of 12 months from this service, are the facts not in dispute.

(3.) Learned A.G.P. submits that he is still awaiting instruction. He points out that respondent nos. 2 to 4 claim that a proposal has been forwarded by them on 16.09.2015 to the Collector, Nagpur and no steps thereafter have been taken by the office of Collector. He therefore, states that Collector should have been joined as a party respondent.